[geocentrism] Re: Evolution
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:16:06 +0100
Dear Paul,
I did respond to this posting on the 19 Sept. so did Martin regarding blood
clotting. However I didn't spend a lot of time dealing with every aspect of it
because I'm still waiting to hear an explanation for abiogenesis or chemical
evolution.
Your firm conviction about T-Rex and DNA ignores the evidence. This evidence is
disputed by scientists who are as blinkered as you are. For them to accept that
the DNA is real will completely undermine all their beliefs and work and
therefore it must be ridiculed as much as possible.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 7:41 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Evolution
Jack L
I was wondering why there was no response to this post when I found it via a
search in my 'Sent' folder but it did not appear in my 'In box'. If you did
receive it but declined to respond then so be it. If not, then you now have an
opportunity to do so.
In the meantime, let me address your recent post concerning T. Rex DNA. Quite
simply, it is my firm conviction that this is some sort of fraud, a hoax, a
conspiracy. Period.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jack L
I've had a look at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/life-cr.htm and
it does look interesting however it is the musings of an academic and is very
speculative. It would require the skills and knowledge of one similarly
qualified to follow most of what he says.
The other thing which disturbs me is the way God and all the trappings of
Goddom are liberally scattered through the site. He makes it obvious where his
'loyalties' lie. Now the man has a Ph D -- though in what discipline is not
stated. If it is in the chemical/biological arena and he is doing real
research, then if he finds weakness, improbability, conflict -- why not just
state that that is what he found. If he is correct, then that is knowledge
which may or may not be useful to others -- depending upon whether or not these
results can be duplicated. Involving God in the discussion just displays his
bias and immediately alerts his readers to this. There are christian scholars
engaged in the sciences who publish papers which contain just the facts, so why
does he mention this? It has no scientific value.
Some of his discussion is interesting but I fear he has already come to a
conclusion
Regarding Michael Behe and his well worn mousetrap, I've read a number of
discussions of his theories and why, after significant investigation (he did
rather throw a spanner into the works after all) these theories have been
largely discounted. The blood clotting cascade was very interesting. One of
those aforementioned investigations looked into this function and to this
blundering amateur, a very good case was made for an alternative explanation
for its origin which falsified the irreducible complexity argument. Sadly I
can't recall who this was and a search for such info -- along with similar
searches for every other thing I can't remember -- would exhaust my remaining
allotment of time.
I found an interesting article while on this subject which you might look at
here -
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/2638_the_elusive_scientific_basis_o_12_30_1899.asp
It is titled and authored as shown immediately below together with the
distilllation of the results.
The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design
by George W. Gilchrist
Index
Years
Intelligent Design
Evolution
BIOSIS
1991-97
1
68 832
Expanded Academic Index
1989-97
30
14 298
Life Sciences Collection
1982-97
1
45 963
Medline
1990-97
1
29 228
Science Citation Index
1992-95
4
10 333
The article explains the criteria for the search but in essence it is a
result of a search of the scientific literature -- published research papers --
over this and the previous decade to discover the relative activity in the two
indicated fields. I think you can see immediately why I'm not particularly
interested in ID.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Now to your second post. I'm running short on time and a minor crash just
lost me about 20m worth so I'll be brief -- comments in teal.
Now you can see what I mean about being drawn into other areas of evolution
before coming to a consensus about abiogenesis first. E.g. Transitionals and
the definition of a kind. Again you show your ignorance of evolution by asking
what did the kangaroo, or lemur or carnivorous caterpillars micro evolve from?
[How does this show my ignorance?] Creationist's say that, as the fossil record
confirms, .[ I suggest that it does not so confirm. You might care to check
this christian source -- http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm and if
nothing else, please tell me why you don't like what it says. Also, see PS
below. ] that all the different kinds were created and that subsequent
microevolution may have changed them a little e.g. alligators, kangaroos and
dragonflies or a lot e.g. dogs, cats and monkeys but they still all remained
the same kind. [ Well -- which kind is the kangaroo descended from? And are you
suggesting that it can breed with an alligator?]
Regarding 'Archy' as it is affectionately know is a bird. Just for minute
Paul ask yourself why there are not an infinite number of transitional types
spread right across the fossil record? [ Sorry, but that is a ridiculous
proposition on at least two counts. I'll explain if you ask. ] Surely plain
common sense tells you that it cannot just be the plain 'kinds' that got
fossilised. [ No indeed not. But as long as you reserve to yourself the
authority to decide whether or not 'Archy' is transitional, then of course you
will always decide in your favour. Still while we're there, when was the last
time you saw a bird with teeth? ] Even Darwin was worried that he hadn't come
across any and that his theory was dependant upon finding them. A recent
curator of the Natural History Museum is on record as saying that he had never
seen or heard of a transitional fossil; if you want the quote I can provide it.
I think that had Darwin lived a lot longer he would have retracted his theory
because the transitionals, as he envisioned, have never materialised. [ In your
opinion plus one. I still have that creationist perspective on evolution! ]
There are only a few listed as transitionals and of course creationists as well
as others dispute them. [ And a very much greater number do not. ] You must
remember that there a lot of scientists who do not accept evolution and who are
not creationists. [ If the table in the section above is any guide, there can't
be too many. ] If your are right then there must be millions of indisputable
transitionals. [ Not so! I'm sure you would dispute them all. Question -- How
many T. Rex skeletons have been found? ] Creationists are, by-and-large,
content with secular science's definition of what a kind is [ Hardly! Secular
science has never defined a 'kind'. That is a biblical concept, for which
secular science has many times asked for a definition from creationists and
never been obliged and this includes you. Note: You will have noticed that
Martin S has corrected me in this particular. ] - so don't bother to go down
that road with me - but by all means check it out for yourself.
You seem reluctant, so I'll propose a tentative and hurried definition of
transitional form -- "A species which exhibits characteristics of an earlier
species together with characteristics of a later species. All, some, or none
need be extant." How about taking a risk and give me your definition?
Paul D
PS On the same site, one level up at
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/philos.htm#Science there are quite a number
of articles from a surprising range of sources from Dembski to Dawkins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it
now.
Other related posts:
